tv Public Affairs CSPAN March 12, 2013 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
learned judgment, is it appropriate for the federal government to control such an overwhelming majority of the spectrum that's suitable for broadband and for the public, the private sector, to be allocated only 15%? >> it's an important question, senator cruz. and others on the committee have asked it as well which i think is a good thing. we do need to take this issue seriously. i've seen the number 60%, maybe measuring different spectrum, but either way, when you compare the usage needs to the amount of spectrum that the federal government has, it doesn't make sense long-term, given the very powerful demands for commercial spectrum. and so working together on this, it's absolutely essential. we need to clear and reallocate much more federal spectrum. and i believe we also need to look at creative sharing ideas and pursue both tracks. >> does anyone disagree with that assessment?
>> i don't disagree. actually the number could be 60%, it could be 85%. to could be more. technological innovation is expanding that. there was junk spectrum years ago which is now prime spectrum. but the federal government can and must do more to relinquish spectrum for auction for diss exclusive use licenses -- for exclusive use licenses. >> let me ask then a follow-up question. are any of you aware of any reliable assessment of the value of all of the spectrum that is controlled by the government? and if not, can you imagine any sensible process for valuing it? and assessing just how significant of an asset is this spectrum that's in control of the federal government? >> we're going to break away from this f.c.c. oversight hearing now. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the u.s. house is about to gavel. in you can watch this and any of the events we cover at
c-span.org. record votes on -- recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. luetkemeyer: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 749, the eliminate privacy notice confusion act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 749, a bill to amend the gramm-leach-bliley act to provide an exception to the annual privacy notice requirement. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, and the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, ach will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and submit heir remarks and extraneous material in the record for h.r. 749. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: i rise today in strong support of h.r. 749, the eliminate privacy notice confusion act. businesses in missouri are drowning in a sea of red tape and the never-ending regulatory onslaught that threatens financial institution's ability to lend to consumers. one banker testified before the financial services committee last year said that as a senior executive, he currently spends 80% of his time working on compliance-related issues compared to 20% as little as three years ago. as he said in that hearing, every dollar spent on compliance is a dollar less that we have to lend and invest in the community we serve. every hour i spend on compliance is an hour i could be spending with customers and potential customers acquiring new deposits and making new loans. in the financial services committee we have heard from countless bankers and credit unions that the costs associated with complying with
rules and regulations are ballooning rapidly and diminishing financial institution's ability to lend, forcing them to charge high fees to their customers. from managial extenses to compliance to printing and postage to provide written disclosures to their customers. this bipartisan bill will help reduce the compliance burdens and confusion among consumers. federal law currently requires financial institutions to issue disclosure notices to consumers that detail the institution's priche is i notices if it shares' customers nonpublic personal information as well as the customer's right to opt out of sharing this information. these disclosures must be issued when a customer relationship is first established and annually in paper form, even if no policy changes have occurred. my bill would require institutions to provides these notices only if they have changed the policy or practice related to the privacy of the consumer.
this may seem like a simple little change, but its impact on financial institutions is significant. requiring these institutions to send annual notices even when no changes have made are redundant, unnecessary and costly. mr. speaker, this bill will permit financial institutions to redirect these resources towards lending, staffing and lowering the cost of financial services. for consumers, these mailings typically serve to clog up mailboxes and confuse even the best of us. in fact, a recent voter survey indicated that fewer than one quarter of the consumers read the privacy notifications they receive and over 3/4 would be more likely to read them if they were only sent when the institution changed its policies. this bill will make the mailings more significant stop consumers because they would only come after a change in policy. let me reiterate. this legislation will only remove the annual privacy notice requirement if an institution has not in any way
changed its privacy policies or procedures. this legislation does not exempt any institution from an individual privacy notice, nor does it allow a loophole for an institution to avoid using an updated notice. this language is not controversial. it does not jeopardize consumer privacy and it does not exempt any institution from having to produce an mish or expanded -- amended privacy notice. this legislation does eliminate millions of costly and confusing mailings. h.r. 749 enjoys broad support within the financial service industries for credit unions and community banks, and hear in congress this bill is one of the few that both republicans and democrats can agree on. in fact, previous versions of this bill passed on a voice vote in both the 111th and 112th congresses, the most recent before christmas. i want to thank the gentleman from california, mr. sherman. he's been tireless and
relentless and been a big supporter for him and his constituents as well. i want to thank chairman hensarling and ranking member waters for swift passage of this legislation. i want to ask my colleagues to voice their support in favor of this bill. h.r. 749 may be short in simple but it will have a meaningful impact on financial institutions by increasing their resources so they can do what they do best -- lend. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. sherman: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sherman: i thank the gentleman from missouri for his tireless work on this. we passed this bill in this exact form in the 111th congress, the 112th congress, and i think the third time will be the charm. we passed it by voice vote once. we passed it again. and this time we're sending it to the senate with 22 months
left to go so they have little excuse for not somehow dealing with the bill. and by that i mean passing the bill. the bill -- this bill was narrowly tail ord. it's straightforward. it simply revises the disclosure requirement originally passed under gramm-leach-bliley to reduce costly and duplicative requirement that all financial institutions mail their customers a copy of their privacy notice each year even if there has been no change in that policy. and so under this bill the only documents that won't have to be mailed are identical to what has been mailed to the same erson at some previous time. there may have been a time in our country where even a decade ago where the natural thing was let's rummage around and try to find that policy -- that
new when they're just getting what they got a year ago. it distracts consumers from reading those notices where there has been a change of policy and focuses their attention on something that is duplicative. this bill makes a simple fix to this problem by requiring the financial institution provide the privacy notice to their customers when they open the account and each time a change occurs that affects the policy or practice related to the privacy of the customer. institutions are still required to post these notices on their websites and to provide a toll free number that customers can call to request a copy of that policy at anytime. the bill simply says you don't have to mail out the same policy document year after year after year. as a result, customers will know that when they get a privacy notice it's something new and deserves their attention or at least contains
some new information, and barnings and credit unions and -- banks and credit unions and other financial institutions that have been spend millions of dollars to mail out redundant policies can redirect those savings to the customer. mr. speaker, i began want to thank mr. luetkemeyer, the representative from missouri, for his tireless leadership on this issue. this is a commonsense fix that th parties can agree on, and i hope that we can pass this bill by voice vote and go on to something else. seeing no democratic speakers, and on that basis, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to again reiterate my thanks to the gentleman from california, mr. sherman, for his hard work on this issue. i know we had a little bump in the road when we were orking on this. he's been tireless on this. again today he's brought a lot of energy and information to
this issue, and we certainly appreciate his support. with that we yield back the balance of our time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the ill, h.r. 749. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. luetkemeyer: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the
rules and pass h.r. 1035, a bill to require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1035, a bill to require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program, and for other purposes the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, and the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the record on h.r. 1035. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr.
speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 1035, legislation introduced by my financial services committee, congresswoman gwen moore, and chairman emeritus, spencor bachus. h.r. 1035 would require the flood insurance agency, the agency which administrators the national flood insurance program, or nfip, to conduct a study on the advantages and disadvantages of providing voluntary community-based services to the nfip and report its recommendations for implementation of congress within 18 months. additionally, h.r. 1035 requires the government accountability office to analyze fema's report and submit its comments or recommendations to congress within six months. community-based flood insurance is an insurance technique where a risk assessment is based for all buildings in the community and then premiums to cover that risk are paid collectively by that community. rather than the current practice of assessing each building individually and having each individual owner
pay a premium. this innovative tool may represent a new and better way for some communities at risk of flooding to take the necessary steps to protect their citizens. in fact, fema has stated in congressional testimony that voluntary community-based flood insurance can help nfip to better account for flood risks as well as provide incentives to encourage communities to implement greater flood mitigation measures. we think it is appropriate to commission this study of the community-based flood insurance concept so that fema can understand how it could be put to its greater benefit. congresswoman moore's community-based flood insurance study provision was originally included as part of h.r. 1309, the flood insurance reform act of 2011, the bipartisan long-term nfip re-authorization that passed the house with over 400 votes in 2011. it was also included as part of the long-term nfip re-authorization efforts that passed the house three other times in different bills in
2012. an identical bill passed as as -- as a stand-alone in 2011. we have had this issue before us before and supported it. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. luetkemeyer. i would love to take this time, and i would yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. moore: i would love to express my appreciation to my original co-sponsors of the bill, chair rim tuss of the financial services committee, spencer bachus, for his support and my other co-sponsor and friend on the committee, representative hinojosa. i believe a community based flood insurance option may eventually provide a cost-saving
option for communities within the larger framework of the overall national flood insurance program. the potential for savings and community empowerment certainly merits a study. now as mr. luetkemeyer has indicated, this bipartisan bill has passed in various forms, the latest being in the 112th congress as h.r. 6186 last september, 364-11. this is no -- this is nothing new. and i would submit that we should support it here today. this approach has merit because it potentially has -- its potential lower rates are due to streamlined underwriting, increased participation, the critical mass of citizens involved and incentives for the community to mitigate future
flood risks. there's also an option of providing lower income households the use of vouchers to purchase flood insurance as part of the group. an analogy for the concept applies to a group or employee health insurance coverage versus individual coverage. we all understand that group coverage is less expensive than individual coverage due to many advantages of economies of scale. now in this case, a community rather than an individual, would be the policyholder. this brings me to another important potential benefit of the approach. the increased incentives for communities to take preemptive action to mitigate future financial threats from floods in the community. whereas an individual flood insurance holder has no incentive, nor means, to build stronger levees or dikes, a community policyholder would have the means to take those
kinds of precautions. in theory the homeowner would pay insurance like a utility bill on a monthly or quarterly basis, which makes it easy to administer. this bill only asks fema to examine the costs and benefits of using this approach on an ongoing basis as an option for communities. we need to continue to seek creative market-based solutions to problems and this study is the first good step toward new tools to strengthen the national flood insurance program. thank you and seeing no other democratic members wishing to speak, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1035 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to again congratulate and thank the gentlelady from wisconsin for her hard work on
this issue. i know that it's something near and dear to her heart and i think it's absolutely something that is a good way to approach the issue from the standpoint of studying to see if this is a viable option. if it is, it could be a beneficial tool for a lot of our communities that are in difficult positions because of the flood situations they may be in. with that, mr. speaker, i request a recorded vote -- i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1035? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? mr. luetkemeyer: yes, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.
it looks like six states in six years abolishing the death penalty. there's clearly a rethinking of the punishment. host: why has it dropped? guest: i think innocence. mistakes in capital cases where people have been freed, sometimes through d.n.a. testing, has caused a will the of concern about this system. this is an irvevcabble punishment. people are saying the death penalty may be too extreme. host: when you look at the states across the country which states have the most numbers of executions, which have the least, and why? guest: texas, by far, has over 400 executions. next is virginia with 100 or so. so it's texas by far. the least, many states have no executions. there's now going to be 18 states without the death penalty. even states with the death penalty, last year, there were 43 executions in the country, only nine states carried them out.
most states are not carrying them out. host: why texas and virginia? culture, societal? guest: both of those things. texas is a large state, strong bereaver in death penalty. even in texas, death sentences have dropped considerably. they had nine death sentences last year. 10 years ago they had 40 death sentences in a year. so there's things happening even in the larger, committed-to-the-death penalty states. host: and california with the most death row inmates, why is there number so big? guest: they have a lot of people sentenced to death but they don't execute people. so people keep gettinged but
not leaving except by natural death. i think it will be abolished in kale too. host: is it more expensive to keep them in prison than executing them? guest: keeping the system going, you have appeals, you have a process of -- death row, for example, is much more expensive as a security measure than a regular prison. people are brought their meals and guarded daily. host: the numbers are going down, talk about the costs, yet look at the polling that's been done on the death penalty over the years. it's remained a popular option with people. are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder? in 2012, 63% for in favor, 32%
opposed. guest: people philosophically don't oppose the death penalty, they don't have a moral objection. i think it's more a pragmatic issue. that's why we're seeing states take action. they have to make policy decisions, financial decisions. oen that basis, the public is much less supportive, when we talk about well, the cost or the risks of executing the innocent and would it be possible to substitute life without parole? you get a 49% to 50% sort of breakdown. host: how much are we talking about? guest: about $3 million for one death penalty case from trial to the end. the same case without the death penalty about $1.1 million. it's about three times as eblings pensive to do a death penalty case than a life case. host: a new study refeels --
reveals that the death penalty in the state has been $4 billion. host: is this coming down to costs for states? guest: people say we can't put a price on justice but we can put a price on security for society. we're spending millions per execution. so it's choices. more lights in high-crime areas, more cops on the beat,
or this one, cushion. if it worked, i don't think we'd have the discussion but it's not working. host: in 1967-196 , the popularity -- 1967, 1968, the popularity dipped. guest: i think people felt the death penalty was caution up in the racism of our society and should be abolished. it also occurred at a time of rising crime. so the tensions went to, let's keep it just in case even though it has these problems. what's slowly now evolving is that it's very hard to extricate that racial bias in the system and perhaps it's time to do away with it even though people still have fears of crime and want severe punishment. host: is there a racial bias? when you look at the information your group put
together, race of those executed, 54% are white, the race of victims in death penalty cases, 67% white, 15% black. guest: it's subtle, if you kill a white person you're more likely to get the death penalty. supposedly some areas will get the benefit of the death penalty. but that's racist. i think another reason why people are uncomfortable with the death penalty even though they support'9" philosophically they know it's unfair. host: we're talking about state efforts to repeal the death penalty with richard dieter of the death penalty caucus.
we'll take your calls. let's hear from john, first. caller: good morning. this guy talking about racism, he's way off the mark. i had an 08-year-old aunt this was killed by a black guy -- an 80-year-old aunt that was killed by a black guy guy. they caught him right after he killed her. he bludgeoned her to death and set her on fire and burned her. he was sent to a mental institution. now, the -- the government is hiding information that would prove that a guy is innocent, the steps they took to make them guilty to try to win
cases, if it was proved they withheld information and lied, if they was charged with the same crime, you'd put a stop to that. host: richard? >> crimes are committed by blacks, crimes are committed by whites, you know there's no denying this terrible -- there's terrible crime out there. i think the caller is raising concerns also about the stakes or even prosecutorial misconduct in death penalty cases. one of the problems with the death penalty is you can't take it back once you've carried out that execution. and we do sometimes find that politics or race or even simply wrongful convictions through misidentification sweep into death penalty cases. these are emotional cases. we want a conviction. sometimes it's wrong. so an irrevocable punishment has that risk.
host: comments on twitter. this from texas. -- since moving back to texas i have done a 180 on the death penalty. and this from james, i only approve of the death penalty if the crime was caught on tape. i don't trust prosecutors enough to put life in their hands. guest: what's happening in texas, they had fewer executions, fewer death sentences. that's capital of capital punishment. the writer says it may be medieval, the rest of the world is moving away from capital punishment, not just the united states. there's certainly something going on and it's something that doesn't sit well, the death penalty, within our constitutional system that always has the protections of the defendant in mind. host: what's happening in other countries? guest: over 100 countries voted for a moratorium on executions. our allies, our european allies, canada, mexico, around
the world, not only don't have the death penalty but they're urging the u.s. to do something, even to the point of withholding the drugs that are used in lethal injecks. it's hard now to carry these executions out because a lot of drugs come from europe. they don't want their drugs used in our executions. even economic sanctions against the u.s. host: bernie, an independent in new york. caller: i'm a correction officer. retired correction officer in new york state. i have almost 40 years in. and over the years i have been asked to sign petitions for the death penalty by my co-workers because they felt it's needed. i've always refused to sign under the assumption that there are some people in jail that yes, i believe there's innocent people in jail and i believe there's people in jail who committed crimes that didn't deserve the death penalty. but that having been said, that's kind of a common feeling amongst many of my fellow corrections officers work every not all arch conservatives but
one thing i also wanted to comment on, many years ago, 15 or 20 years ago, pbs or one of the news programs ran an interview program with criminals about 20 years old and at the thoachedintever view they'd have an overview about their life of crime and if it was an option for them would they continue it, they would say, working for the white man for minimum wage is not an option and the second final part of the comment was, and this is the vernacular, and there ain't no death penalty. so yes it's common knowledge among the young people that if they kill somebody they won't be executed. that's a consideration too. do i believe there's people in prison that if the death penalty is there they deserve it? yes, unfortunately there are people who the deserve the death penalty. but these are the comments that need to be said and it needs to be said the young people know if there ain't no death penalty
they don't mind because they don't have to pay the ultimate price. guest: i've had a couple of occasions to speak at the american correctional organization, it's a fine organization and its preamble talks about lifting up those incarcerated and they do a superb job. they face -- correctional officers face risk bus they face those risks as much from people who are not on death row or not identified as the worst of the worst this epeople who are tense about getting out, etc. i'm sure the caller knows all about that. it's true. the death penalty isn't ape plied. and you'd be right to say, i'm not going to worry about that particular punishment because you know 43 executions last year in the u.s. we had 15,000 murders. it's a nonentity. and therefore spending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep it as some sort of myth or symbol i think is a serious question.
host: $20 million to $30 million to put someone to death. what was the cost 20 or 30 years ago? who gets that money? those investing in the prison system? guest: it's hard to understand how you spend $20 million to execute somebody but the place that comes from, it costs $3 million to do one case. but only one out of 10 of those cases is actually going to result in an execution. so at the end of the day, a state has spent $30 million to get one execution. it goes to lawyers, it goes to prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, the whole system. it takes 15 years to get from sentencing to execution. all of that time because it's the death penalty is spent in high level security, costing more, people's meals are brought to them, they're escorted to everything, appeals, lawyers, etc.
host: to darrell a democrat in chicago. go ahead. caller: i feel that the death penalty should be brought back for the simple fact, jails now are being glorified and you go to jail, it's gone from a place you don't want to go. in chicago it don't make no sense. they say it's inhumane for the death penalty, for a while it was electric care and all that. but i feel like that's the only way they can come here and get a hold on the city to stop them from this crime. guest: illinois is one of the states that did abolish the death penalty. they did it because they realized so many mistakes had been made. the governor said you can't -- more people were freed from death row in illinois than were eblings cuted. and it can't keep going on like that. in theory, we'll take these terrible criminals and punish them with the death penalty and everybody will get the fear of god and not commit any more
murders. the reality is, some of those will be innocent, most of those thinking about crime aren't thinking about what punishment they're going to get. the theory and the reality are so far apart. i think what we have to do, let's take a look at new york city. tremendous drops in murders without the death penalty. but things work to prevent crime, the death penalty is not one of them. host: here are the states that have abolished the death penalty and when they did it. 1846, michigan decided to repeal the death penalty.
host: did some of these states reverse itself? guest: no. michigan, -- not saying it never happened, but michigan, 1846, it never reversed. and the group of countries that don't have the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the states with the death pefpblet. it's true of countries as well. if you don't get a benefit from having the death penalty. it's that matter of fact. if you have a lower rate why go back. host: what's the alternative? guest: life without parole. it keeps society safe, it's a severe punishment, it's actually less expensive, and it doesn't have the risk that if you do find you made a mistake, you can still free the person. host: from twitter --
guest: good question. it was november of 2012, in the election, 52% to 48%, close vote, but almost half of california wanted to abolish the death penalty. it failed i think because people don't have to pay, you know, when they go to the voting booth, for the death penalty. they let's just keep it on the books. legislators know they have to balance the budgets and wasteful programs but ballots, you can see evolution. i think 20 years ago in california, 70% supported the death penalty. now it's down to 48%. i think if they do it again at some point, we might see something different. host: fran a democrat in pennsylvania. caller: i think you just made the point i was going to make very well. i can't think of anything that would be worse than spending
the rest of my life in jail without parole. if a horrendous crime were committed. i think the death penalty should be abolished and basically for that reason and for the cost associated with it. i just can't -- i just think that life without parole for some crimes is the answer. and that's my comment. i thank you. host: thanks, fran. mac, an independent in gilbert, arizona. caller: i was going to say, i think the conversation is missing a key idea and that is that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it's because it's done behind closed doors. it should be done in public, it sounds ghoulish, backwards, medieval but it's not a deterrent because nobody actually sees it. it's very sanitized and it should be done in public. i know that sounds, you know,
really regressive, if you will but otherwise how can it be a detesht. host: got your point, mac. guest: they used to do hangings in the public square, people came, brought their children, kind of a festive thing. that sort of death penalty i think can have a fatal attraction. people want the limelight of the death penalty. when utah had the firing squad, inmates were volunteering to have that as their method of execution. why? it's a spectacle. because they'll be noticed. they'll have everybody worried about them. i think -- it's a dangerous precedent to say, well, show the violence and people become virtuous. i think, you know, here's your punishment, you're never going to get out, your appeals are over, life without parole,
that's a serious punishment. the death penalty is -- has all sorts of attractiveness to some people. host: are juveniles executed and what about women, on death row. guest: juveniles, those under 18 at the time of the crime, no, it's the age when they committed the crime. women, there's no particular rooms -- rules against it other than if a woman is pregnant but very few women are on death row, only 12 women have been executed since 1976, compared to 1,300 men. it's, you know, it's who is committing the crimes is part of the story there. host: from twitter -- guest: well, it is up to the individual prosecutor whether to seek the death penalty. counties that, you know, where they have big contested elections, a lot of money to spend, nothing like the death penalty to show, you know, how
strong on crime you are and how -- it gives that appearance. there's a danger of politics shifting into the death penalty because it puts you on the front page. yo no, i, rural counties almost never seek the death penalty, but that's a disparity that doesn't make sense. i think that's slowing down. i think prosecutors are realizing the death penalty is not a sure thing anymore. juries are too skeptical. host: another tweet from one of our viewers -- host: 8% say executions don't lower homicide rates. guest: over 80% of the executions are in the south osme this four regions of the
country, the south has the highest murder rate and that's been true for 40 years. it's not working. ethe -- the area of the country with the least executions is the northeast. it is the area with the least murder rate. that doesn't prove deterrence but it throws some cold water on the idea that you just have the death penalty, murders will slow down. it just doesn't bear out. host: elizabeth in new york, republican. caller: good morning. i live in new york and at one time we did have the death penalty and then they stopped. i have a question and a comment. in new york, if you kill or shoot or murder a police officer, or law enforcement person, you can receive the death penalty, it becomes first degree murder versus second degree murder. i'd like to know if that still
exists where, i don't believe that a police officer's life is more valuable than any other life but they are there in a particular job defending us. so although i have -- even though police officers have been shot and killed, they don't get the death penalty. i'm wondering does that still stand in new york? host: go ahead. guest: it does still stand, with one caveat and that is there's a federal death penalty. there's an inmate in new york who killed a police officer who is facing federal charges and the death sentence but new york's law was found to be unconstitutional and it hasn't been fixed. the legislature said we don't want any part of it anymore. it is not even being, you know, voted on very much anymore. so it's not possible, but people can get life without
parole which didn't used to exist in new york until they adopted the death penalty. host: to greg in clover, south carolina. republican. caller: i had a question about the cost that you were discussing earlier. and all those millions of dollars that they were talking about. is that just for prosecution, or how much the cost is to keep those folks in jail for the rest of their life? thank you. guest: it's mostly for the cost of prosecution and defense, lawyers are, you know, expensive. the incarceration adds up. it's probably about $25,000 a year to keep somebody in prison, it's more like $50,000 a year to keep somebody on death row. because you have to watch them more closely. more guards per inmate. and so it's more expensive. but the major part of cost of the death penalty are the legal costs and the fact that only
about one in 10 cases actually result in an execution and yet the other nine are adding to the expense. host: here's lee on twitter -- host: however, there is the argument, an one caller made it yerler -- earlier, if you lower the penalty for murder it signals less regard for the victim, for another person's life. guest: that's a concern. and the concern also occurs even with the death penalty. obviously we don't use the death penalty for every murder. we don't have a life for a life. which cases are, you know, worth more? it turns out if you kill a white person that's worth more. if you have a good lawyer, your case might not get the death penalty system of we do choose. and i think that does divide, we say -- we diminish the value
of life because we say some are worth more than others. life without pa -- what life without parole does is level the playing field and say everybody's life. you commit this crime you forfeit your life in society. that's what's happening. host: rich says, life without parole would be worse than death in my opinion but who pays for the criminals upkeep for life? guest: it costs money. costs $25,000 a year to keep somebody in prison, if they live 40 years, it's $1 million. the death penalty costs you $3 million. we're paying for both. what we're really paying for, we sentence to death and keep them in prison for life. which is expense at both ends, and that makes the least sense. host: lee a democrat in san antonio, texas caller: i'm a
first-time caller, thank you for taking my call. i was involved in prison ministry for 11 years. it was an eye-pope for the and really challenged our -- my ideals of what i thought. you know, the criminal justice system, i think we should really -- our paradigm needs to shift. i understand the punishment phase but i want to get your perspective on one, the for-profit motive and the reconciliation. what i have found is, even when i get personally involved with inmates, not the death penalty but when they get out and i try to get involved in their lives, if they have no way whatsoever of gaining access to a job by having resources to provide for themselves and family if they have them, what you do is just
create a system where even the enmates that do their time, they're going to end up, in other words, back in the prison system and when i caulked -- talked to them they say they just become better criminals. guest: i have visited a lot of prisons and gotten to know a lot of prisoners. one thing that strikes me is how much people change over the queers in prison. they go in addicted to drugs. but years later they become a different person. that doesn't mean they need to be out in society. i think people can change. talk about rededges, i think people can have a life. getting out, for crimes less than what we're talking about, for the death penalty, and that takes resources. jobs, training, followup.
right now, we're putting $100 million into the death penalty that money could go toward, you know, improving our correctional systems generally. make it safer for correctional officers and make it less of a revolving door. we've got to choose where to put our money. host: is it federal money or all state money we're talking about? guest: it's all taxpayer money. mostly state, yes. the federal money only comes in because there's a federal part of the death penalty appeal that's paid for by congress. but that's toward the end and most of it is, you know, state taxes and county tacks. there's counties who have gone bankrupt trying to pay for one death penalty cyle. host: mike, an independent in prescott, arizona. caller: first, it's got to do a lot with money. people with money don't go to
jail, people -- poor people go to jail. the lady in new york says if you kill a cop you get the death penalty and somebody else said i wouldn't believe in the death penalty unless it's on video. they've got cop footage from their cars of them killing innocent people but nothing happens to cops. for years it's under ngs, no prosecution, no nothing. are we less than them? they should be held above the law, not below it. i think -- like i said, you never hear of a cop going to jail and the cop that just killed all them people in california and diane feinstein wants to let them have a place for cops. half of them are nuts anyway. host: we'll leave it there. ghost: there are certainly abuses throughout the system. no one is perfectly virtuous.
that means we're fallible. to me the bottom line is, let's not execute people, assuming we know infallably that they're guilty and they deserve the death penalty. so you know, a lot of other thoughts were in the call but for me, let's recognize that we make mistakes. host: dan, democratic caller in stevens point, wisconsin. caller: i have a comment, if someone is up for murder one, that usually mean they committed a violent crime. if we wait too long to execute, they spend all their time the minute they get in jail for appeal, how many appeals do they get? quite a few. you see the prisoners, you've been talking about them, but what about the victims of the crimes? they're put up for murder one, that's usually for a reason. and we have to think about the victims, not just the poor guy that's going to get executed, and there are mistakes but you know, usually we should get on
with it instead of having these guys sitting there for 15 years. they aren't going to change after 15 years but it has to be addressed right away. host: all right, dan. guest: 143 people have been freed from death row since 1973 who were common rated. it took almost 10 years between their sentencing and when they were freed. you could shorten the appeals, down to five years, say. but you'd miss a lot of innocent people. you would have executed some of these innocent people. appeals are annoying, they -- time consuming, expensive, but they are absolutely necessary. as far as the victims, i was over in annapolis when maryland was debating the death penalty recently, some of the most articulate and impassioned people testify wrg families who had somebody murdered and they said, we don't want the death penalty. it drags us through those years
of appeals. it puts the focus on the defendant. it puts the money on the defendant. and -- give us life without parole and have that part of it be ended. victims are not pushing for the death pefpblet. that's what we've seen in state after state that has -- connecticut, maryland, about to abolish the death penalty, and many other states. host: jordan, a democratic call for the chicago. welcome to the conversation. caller: i want to ask a question. what could we do when they're murder urg young kids, can we make the jail nns a more sentence, they're eating three times a day, they go to school, they got cell phones, what can they do to stiffen up the penalty.
guest: i think the first thing we want to do is not have a 40% unsolved crime rate in these murders. you know. that's at least a level in some states. find the person who did the crimes and now let's talk about the punishment. life without parole is no easy thing to survive. you need something in prison. you need meals, you need something just for distraction but years and years of that kind of confinement is no picnic. and i think we should, you know, all spend a night in jail or something to get a feel for what one day is like away from your family, not being able to do anything. so you know, we could stiffen up the punishments. it's going to make it harder on the guards. if that's the goal. what we have is one out of 100 people we execute at a cost of millions of dollars, if we want
to change the system, there are resources. right now, we're pouring them into lawyers and appeals for death row cases. let's spend it on other things. host: what does the supreme court say about the death penalty? guest: i teach the course on the death penalty and it's volumes and volumes we have to cover, at catholic university law school. they say a lot and it changes. they used to say you could execute juveniles and we could execute people with mental retardation and now we cant. they, too, are an evolving group of people and often very split on the death penalty but the basic holding is the death penalty is constitutional because it's not unusual. host: do you see it coming before the court again? guest: yes, cases come around the edges every year. but the big question is do we get to a point as society where
this has become so unusual, so outside of the norms of our standards of decency, i think right now it's still in the debate time. but i think there will come a time just as with the execution of juveniles that the court says, this is now outside of our standards and we're striking it down even though some states retain it. host: to bernstein in -- an independent in oak hill, west virginia. caller: can you hear me? host: we can. last phone call. caller: my question is, does the military still have the death penalty in their court system? guest: yes, they do. they've got about six people on death row. they have not carried out an execution since 1963. so military members committing crimes, there's an understanding that the stress -- the war, things affect people in strange ways. but in any case it exists but
is rarely used and not used in over 40 years now. host: for more go to deathpenaltyinfo.org. richard dieter, thank you, sir. >> he house is in recess. members will be back in about 6:30 eastern, a half-hour from now for votes on bills debated earlier. today, british prime minister david cameron updated parliamentary committee members on sir wra and mali, including the british government decision to provide aid to opposition forces in syria's civil war. this is >> the e.u. embargo on arms supplies to the rebels in syria. the turkish foreign minister
considering lifting the ban, yet you have reservations. can you think of circumstances where you would veto the arms embargo when it is up for renewal in may, which is in effect lifting it. >> i would hope that wouldn't be the case. what i would like to do is continue with the e.u. approach. we just amended it so we can supply relief and equipment and hopefully persuade our european partners if and when it becomes necessary, they'll agree with us. if they can't, we might have to do things in our own way. >> quite possibly you would veto
an extension of the embargo? >> we are still an independent country. we have an independent foreign policy. if, for instance, we felt that action needed to be taken to help bring about change in syria to end this bloodshed we felt our european partners were holding that back. then we would have to change the approach. but that's not what i hope will happen. we have made a very good job persuading colleagues to amend the terms of the arms embargo so we can provide nonlethal equipment. why are we doing this? and if we want to help bring about a transition in syria, we have to work with the opposition groups and to help them, work with them and encourage those that are committed to a a
democratic future for syria. you can't do that if you are simply not engaged -- supplying the enemy in terms of helping in the work they are doing. >> supplying these rebels with weapons. >> it's not a decision we have taken. and i hope we don't have to break from a collaborative approach. i was making the point if we thought it was the right thing to do it, we'd do it. >> if you can't agreement amongst e.u. partners, we stand ready to take any domestic measures to ensure sampingses on syria remain affecttive. but a bold unilateral statement. >> if for whatever reason and this could have happened when we were discussing the e.u. and
arms embargo and if we couldn't have agreed amongst the 27 the changes we thought would be necessary to supply equipment, we would have had a choice. either you let the whole sanctions package forward. you supply the nonlethal equipment. but at the same time, britain is a important player and would have to put in place its own sanctions and we drew up that legislation and ready to go if we couldn't get agreement across europe because it was not for britain to put its sanctions in place. finance or who knows what. that is responsible planning. >> sticking with arming the rebels and they are gathering from all over the world to fight their cause, do you think it would be a mistake to arm the
rebels where we don't know their identity and their intentions are rather uncertain? >> there are dangers in any course of action that we take. there is a danger in inaction. while the world stood by and frankly not done enough in syria, what has happened, as well as 70,000 people being murdered. you have seen the jihadist elements of the opposition have grown. doing nothing is a positive choice in this case and maybe doing nothing the situation gets worse. my argument is working with the opposition and supplying part of the opposition, you can have influence with your partners and working closely with the jordanians, the americans and the french. we are working closely with them to try and work together with the opposition to shape and help that opposition to encourage the
opposition to become a democratic society where minorities have rights. if we stand back and say, i'm sorry we can't reach agreement in europe, i would argue that is a positive choice but with a negative outcome. >> the reason given, we can't allow syria to become another breeding ground for terrorists who pose a threat to our national security. isn't the weakness of that argument could apply to dozens of places around the world? >> i have often made the argument just because you can't do the right thing somewhere doesn't mean you shouldn't do the right thing anywhere. it applies to other places around the world. i would argue that britain wsh she shouldn't overstate our global role in what we can do. but with partners, with allies, i think we can help to have an effect in countries and to
reduce the level of threat that we face. if we take, for instance, what we're doing in mali -- this is just an example, we are assisting the french and training the african forces and not in a combat role. but is it better to play that sort of role and help? can you have an effect as a supporter? yes, you can. and i think that's the role that britain should seek. we should combine the tough and intelligent approach and work out where we can best maximize our national interests and reduce the level of jihadism and in mali, we have done just that. >> the refugee fallout from this, the number of refugees hit a million last week and it is an extreme humanitarian crisis.
and three-quarters not funded. if what you said, likely to lead to more refugees and bigger crisis? >> the last question first, i don't think what we're doing helping syrian rebels will add to the refugee crisis. this is something that is happening any way. again what our policy aim here, what are we trying to achieve? help them transition. and there are two ways that can happen. political transition at the top and diplomatic pressure or you have transition from below where the rebel forces eventually push the regime which has done appalling things to people and eventually push them out. there is a humanitarian crisis.
and britain is playing a leading role in helping with that humanitarian crisis. we will be responding to it as it unfolds. no doubt about who is responsible for this humanitarian crisis, assad himself. turkey has strong interests. >> and fragile countries like jordan and lebanon who are struggling and this refugee problem could further destabilize these countries. will the u.k. government give them support? >> the refugee camps i visited in jordan that was partly funded by u.k. taxpayers and we will look at where we can best help. we should use our generosity to
help others. as i say, i don't -- i wouldn't accept the argument that our actions are making this worse. our actions are designed to try to help achieve transition in syria and ease the humanitarian crisis at the same time. >> the point you're making, this is a very fragile region, what is happening in syria -- >> that's an argument for engagement. and trying to help. >> go back to this also. >> on the subject of mali, you talked about the islamic terrorists. we must beat them militarily and defeat the narrative they feed on and close down government space. pretty well aware there was an important speech about
restructuring the intelligence relationships in north africa. is that speech the response to how you are going to beat them militarily? >> i added to that if militarily close down government space. drain the swamp of issues on which they feed. and you have to think about how you develop political systems in which the moderates can beat the extremists. [inaudible] >> that is not my view at all. this is an intelligent approach. you need a political settlement. all these things as well as the
tough action that the french have taken. >> the intelligence, restructure intelligence arrangements, is that part of the response? >> it is part of the response. i'm not sure we can take these responsibilities ourselves. my argument is where we have strong relationships for instance in nigeria, we should build on those where others have strong relationships like the french in mali and try to partner up with countries where there are real threats of extremism, jihadism and the export of terror and try to get ahead of these problems rather than wait for them to grow. >> in 2010, there has to be a clear strategic aim and viable exit strategy before we deploy u.k. forces. the president of mali has spoken, not only in
communications and facilities to receive our aircraft, but training of the military forces. what is it the exit strategy? >> to train the people who will take over from the french and that is the military exit strength for the french and for our trainers who will be training the nigeriaians. the french can go home and less need for our training. military, there is an exit strategy. i would argue more importantly, you won't solve the problem by military means. the real exit strategy is to build the capacity of the government of mali and security forces to reach a political settlement that both north and south mali feel included in, it's engaging with the neighbors to help the stability of that country.
it's all of those things which will overtime enable mali to have a more stable existence. >> isn't it the current situation forces are to stay longer -- ask us things to do that weren't part of the original strategy? >> if you look, the french want to get their troops out of mali relatively quickly because they know the longer they stay the more they might become part of the problem. replacing those troops with african troops is very sensible. and britain's contribution here is, troops to help with the resupply. some troops in the training mission. and troops hopefully in nigeria
rather than in mali, training them to play that role. >> we learned from previous conflicts that maybe we haven't thought these things through. >> you got a position where there is vulnerability over years to see economic collapse. we have actually withdrawn our development support we have. do you think we should reconsider that? >> i think that we should keep it under review but i don't think it was a bad decision on this basis. we have a lot of different programs, some of which were too small to make much of an impact or much of a say. i think trying to focus in areas
where we can be contributing aid but also trying to help with real political political and economic development makes more sense. what can we do in this area that is the most constructive? nigeria is a country we should partner up with more and have a greater effect. whereas it makes more for the french. >> can we protect women who are the most vulnerable in this crisis? and we have seen already that their rights have been brutally suppressed and whenever there is a problem of this kind, women suffer rape, violence and often death. and the international community doesn't always respond. do you believe that the role of the u.k. government with partners to step in, because we will hear horror stories and
people want to know why we didn't do anything about it. >> where you have these jihadist-style regimes like you had in northern mali, that is another justification for the civil action that the french supported by us have taken. and living in mali -- women in mali will be better off. your broader question, gathering evidence so the world can act when there are rapes taking place -- >> the u.k. >> the foreign secretary has actually given quite a lead on internationally and wants to raise it as part of our g-8. and part of that is how you gather the information and what is actually happen so you can galvanize opinions.
>> [inaudible] what intelligence information did you have at that time and awareness of looking to develop into the crisis we have seen? >> what i was receiving, the joint intelligence committee in the cabinet office that produced really good security briefings on different parts of the world and threat levels. this was showing up as an area of concern because of the issues of extremism and extremist groups. we did reopen our embassy in
2010. the national security council discussed mali in july of 2012 and january of this year. and i see him as my envoy and he traveled to the area and knew it as a minister and knew it before. had good contacts with the french. and as you said, a helpful apointment and been able to brief me and the foreign secretary in a lot of detail about the international meetings he is attending on behalf of britain to make sure we galvanize action. it's a fresh start through the national security council and the national security strategy and as i said, today mali and what is happening in mali is a massive security threat to the u.k. there is plenty of evidence that it's a threat to british people
in the region, as we have seen in recent days. but i think all these spaces have the potential to provide a direct threat to britain. we have seen that with somalia and seen it elsewhere and pays to get ahead, which is what we are trying to do. >> [inaudible] would you agree there has been investments in northwest africa -- [inaudible] >> what can we do going forward if this is an increased threat? >> there has been a fair amount
of investment in diplomatic networks and relationships and i think i thank the secretary for turning that situation around. we have opened a lot of embass yes, sir not just in africa. one of the only european players to have an embassy in every country. he has opened the foreign language school. we do face budgets. the focus on trying to extend our diplomatic punch has been pretty good and my whole argument is where we need to succeed and forge links with countries and make sure that britain looks out in the world and build strong embassies. >> you can get to your next appointment and snatch some time when we next see you.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we'll have more british politics tomorrow morning with prime minister's questions. because of daylight savings time, coverage starts an hour later at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. the house is in recess right now coming back in in 10 minutes right now on votes for bills debated earlier. we'll have live coverage when they return. a senate majority leader harry reid and republican leader mitch mcconnell talk about the different budget proposals. >> november's election is fresh.
top republicans promised a gentler republican party, that cared about every american to achieve their dreams. fairness and opportunity. they made over turs toward women and hispanics and promised cooperation and end to brinkmansship. cantor spoke on agenda of showing conditions for health, happiness and prosperity for more americans and their families, closed quote. rebranding we thought was under way. and a few weeks past and the republican made a direct u-turn back to where they started. the house budget committee, chairman paul ryan will unveil an extreme budget to say anything but balance. this budget reflects the same skewed priorities the republican party has championed for years, the same skewed priorities.
the ryan republican budget calls for more tax breaks for the wealthy and end to medicare as we know it and cuts to education and other programs to help america's economy grow and prosper. we have heard many times and i'll repeat it, it is day gentleman or view all over -- deja vu all over the again. the ryan budget will give more tax breaks to millionaires to the advantage of corporate interests and raise taxes on the middle class. now i know that congressman ryan is held out to be this guy who understands things so well, what he understands is gimmicks. he has pulled the wool over the eyes of those people in the house and they continue following him. his budget is anything but
balanced and fair and members of the house should look what they are being led into or out of. this plan, just like last year, refused to close a single tax loophole to reduce the deficit. education, health care, scientific research and clean energy technology. the ryan budget would end medicare guarantees for is seniors and force them into a voucher program. and and ser screenings and charge more for prescriptions and reduce funding for food inspectors, police and first responders generally. and it's protecting wealthy special interests isn't bad enough, the republican budget deficient states the public economy. this wrong approach is the same old approach and to make matters worse the paul ryan budget number three has done it two other times, same fuzzy math and
gimmicks as his previous two budgets and allies on accounting that is fraudulent at worse. we believe it's critical we restabilize the deficit but will take more to achieve real deficit reduction. when corporation are making record profits and wealthy american incomes continue to rise, the deficit reduction shouldn't be at the expense of middle class families, senior citizens and the poor. a fair approach, all americans, democrats, republicans and independents, they want a fair approach to deficit reduction that makes sensible cuts to share the burden, balance. we have been listening, mr. president. that's why this budget chair will introduce a balance. her plan, the democrat plan will
cuss wasteful spending and close tax loopholes that benefit the rich and invest in what the economy needs to grow to continue to build to grow and will create a strong middle class. congressman ryan and his republican colleagues in congress have taken a different approach. their budget will put money to special interests ahead of middle class families and no amount of rebranding will hide that. >> president obama missed legal deadline to submit a budget to congress just like he has nearly every year of his presidency. but this year, it's even worse. we now know he doesn't plan to submit a budget until after the house and the senate have already acted to pass one. this never happened in more than 90 years that have gone by since the modern budgeting process was established in the 1920's. somehow, presidents managed to
submit budgets on time in the middle of world war ii, during the great depression. but somehow, not today. there is simply no excuse. rather than helping lead congress toward a reasonable outcome, it appears the president is happy to drop a bomb on the congressional budget process, instead by releasing his budget plan after, after the house and senate have already acted. now presumably, this is so he can campaign against republicans if the process fails as he no doubt hopes. let's hope he doesn't trot out that tired political playbook again. the president should send out his budget now, not next week or next month, but today. so both sides can consider it at a time when it might be helpful rather than destructive to the entire process. and speaking of serious delays,
for four years, my constituents in kentucky and americans across the country have been asking senate democrats a simple question, where's the budget? where's the budget? most families put one together. they want to know what democrats who run the senate have planned. but for four years, senate democrats have ignored these concerns year after year and neglected one of the most important legislative responsibilities, but evidently that's about to change. senate democrats are now pledging to finally, finally produce a budget. it will be interesting to see what they put forward. i hope senate democrats take this seriously and propose spending reforms that can put our country a stronger more sustainable fiscal path to control spending and lead to private sector growth and job
creation. we'll find out soon. what about republicans? republicans lead the house and they produce budgets every year right on schedule, budgets that would put our country on a path to growth and job creation and our entitlement programs on a sound fiscal footing. so they're around when people need them. today, house republicans will unveil this year's budget blueprint. the reforms it contained would jump start our economy, help more americans join the middle class and begin to tackle the debt that threatens all of our futures. because republicans understand we need to grow the economy, not grow the government. what's more, it would get us back to a balanced budget in a few short years. call me a skeptic, but there is little chance the budget that my friends put forward by the democrats will balance today or
forever and will not contain much in spending reform and get more what we have come to expect the past few years, lots of gimmicks, lots of wasteful spending and even more tax hikes. that type of budget won't grow the economy, nor will it shrink the debt. here's the thing. the budgeting process is a great way for both parties to outline their priorities for the country and that is something that senate democrats have refused to do until now. if they want to put forward a budget that allows medicare to go bankrupt, high taxes on families and small businesses that can least afford them and proposes a future of massive deficits without end, if that's how they want to define themselves for the american people, then let the battle of ideas begin. we need to see their budget first. time to end delays and put the ideas out there on the table and well past time for the president to do the same.
not after congress acts, but before. republicans have managed to play by the rules every year and produce serious budgets for our country. i hope democrats are finally ready to get to work to do the same. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the house is coming in for one vote dealing with flood insurance. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives , that the permanent select committee on intelligence has been served with a criminal trial subpoena for documents issued by the united states
district court for the district of arizona. after consultation with the office of general counsel, the committee has determined under rule 8 that the documents sought are not material and relevant and that the subpoena is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly the committee intends to move to squash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, mike rogers, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1035. on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1035, a bill to require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance options and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill.
members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 397. nays as are 17 -- the are 17. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have received a subpoena issued by
the united states district court for the eastern district of california reporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that under rule 8, that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant. and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, ted poe, ember of congress.
the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. rise to support judge poe's resolution and request the prompt return of the residents of camp ashraf. the living conditions of the residents is being threatened.
the united states needs to help facilitate the return of the residents for their own protection to the camp, located also in iraq, where they have safer facilities and a better infrastructure that may sustain future attacks. ms. rostrost: yes -- ms. ros-lehtinen: yes, future attacks. because they intend to attack camp liberty again with rockets and mortars. mr. speaker, time is of the essence. i urge the u.s. house of representatives to debate the poe bill on the floor immediately due to the urgent humanitarian situation that the residents are facing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?
>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i would like to take this opportunity to recognize the sacrifice and selfless service of marine sergeant zachary george, born and raised in california, he and i even went to the same elementary school. sergeant george was wubed in afghanistan on february 4 while honorably serving on his third tour of duty abroad. last tuesday, march 5, president obama awarded sergeant george the purple heart. i had the honor of meeting him at walter reed medical center. mr. swalwell: i thank the sernlt for his brave actions around congratulate him on the achievement of a purple heart, his courage in combat and his service to our country should
forever be remembered he exemplifies the marine corps' values of honor ander is vess every day. his selfless service reminds us as a nation that we must pledge when our troops are return home we leave no service member behind. along with serkt george and his -- along with sergeant george's fellow marines, i thank sergeant george and his family for their service to our country. i wish him a speedy recovery. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, the federal reserve on wednesday, march 6, released the edition of its so-called beige book that said the president's affordable care act is being cited as reason for layoffs and a slowtown in hiring.
the beige book examines economic conditions in federal reserve districts across the country with interviews with with with key business contacts in each district. it stated, and i quote, several people said the affordable care as a reason for layoffs. we remind americans of the countless broken promises that now define the so-called affordable care act. the writing son the wall, mr. speaker. the reality is the affordable care act is costing american jobs. as more regulations go into effect and more employers will alter their hiring digs to count for its unaffordable costs. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to address the so-called path to prosperity released today by the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan. as a freshman member of congress i was hoping to look at the proposal with a fresh set of eyes and find places where republicans and democrats can agree. too often congress foe on what divides us, not what unites us. but looking at the gentleman's proposal all east given us is vague bullet points that fail to say much.
he says he'd like to eliminate loopholes. democrats would love to do that too. but how can we do so when mr. ryan won't even specify which deductions or credits he'd eliminate? i'd like to close the carried interest loophole and end tax breaks for private jets and luxury yachts but what set of loopholes does mr. ryan want to close? it's a mystery. what tax breaks would he like to cut? the home mortgage interest deduction, the child tax credit -- let me stop you there, mr. ryan. cutting those will hurt the middle class residents of my district and i will not support such cuts. mr. takano: for the middle class, this is a trip to nowhere. mr. ryan says he's a serious policymaker but looking at this proposal i'm not sure what he's serious about. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to
address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker, around midnight last saturday, i was standing with a group of spirited texans in the parking lot of b.f. terry high school. we were waiting for the triumphal return of the terry men's basketball team. mr. olson: three hours earlier, they were cutting down the nets at the texas 4-a state champions. the rangers showed the hearth of a true champion by defeating the two-time defending champions, dallas-kimball, 55-47. down eight at halftime, the terry defense took over. in the second half, they held
dallas-kimball without a point. the last three minutes and 45 seconds. congratulations to coach michael jackson, m.v.p. derek griffin, and the whole team for bringing the hardware home to rosenberg. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: it is my intent to bring the house's attention to several important issues. i'd like to join in our mutual effort with mr. poe to address the devastation of the people in camp liberty, iranian refugees who have been attacked and misstreeted and -- mistreated and me -- we must fight for them and ensure their safety. i also want to comment on the introduction of a new budget by the house and say that we have to come together and not be
conflicting with programs or initiatives that will not happen. to have a budget based upon the elimination of the affordable care act, it simply will not happen. we must come together. finally, america is ready for comprehensive immigration reform. in a meeting i held yesterday in houston with over 90 to 100 persons if you heard the story of a father who was told to leave his children behind and to leave the country, you would know this is not about immigration, it's about families, it's about humanitarianism, it's about bringing america and americans together. we have a few things to do in this country and a few things to do in this congress. let's get on with it and do it in the right way. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.
recently, the pentagon proposed a new medal, the distinguished warfare medal, to recognize those members of the armed services who operate the drones which serve on vital mishes -- missions over war areas. that's a good thing. mr. murphy: however, they have also said it should rank above the bronze star and the purple heart. it is of great concern to a number of us in the house that this has taken place because we believe that those who see the actual battles and those who fight and receive wounds in battle should have their medals take precedence over this. i ask all members to be in support of h.r. 833 and sign on as co-sponsors so we can correct this problem and work together to make sure that the bronze star and purple heart are kept in the rightful order of medals because these things do matter to our military. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise this evening to just honor and pay tribute to a dear, dear friend of mine and to the community and my congressional district, leo keating. mr. ryan: he was the grandfather of my legislative director ryan keating and his brother is a good friend of min, brandon. leo was a great world war ii veteran who knew how to live life. he was a pilot, he was a lawyer, he loved baseball, and he was funny. he was a tremendous guy who helped me at a very, very young age get into politics and today as we went through his mass, his funeral mass, his son dan, who practiced law with him, talked about these three bronze stars he earned in the war.
typical of that generation, nobody really knew about it. because he didn't talk about it. and i wanted to rise today and honor that, and honor him, because i think as we deal with a lot of the craziness that's going on here in washington, d.c., it was a nice example today to see this man who is a hero to his country getting the military burial and what not and to think he never even talked about it and how beautiful that was, he was just a great guy with knew how to live life and we will miss leo keating and i know his family and friends will miss him dearly he gave us one last gift going out, his family wanted him to have dialysis, he said no. they said dad, try it one time, see if you like it, see if it helps. no, i'm ready. and he was ready and he gave us one last example of how to live
with grace and dignity. so, good-bye, leo. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there any other one-minute speeches? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. cicilline of rhode island for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request s grant. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i am john garamendi, from california, i'm joined by a couple of my colleagues here tonight. we want to go through a couple of things that are of utmost importance to americans. i had three town halls on saturday in california. about 450-mile drive to get to all three of them buffalo at cheever one of them, the concerns were -- but at -- all three of them, but at each and every one of them, the concerns were similar. in california there's a desire to get the economy going, there's a pent up energy in the people, the small businesses he farm businesses, not just because of the almonds blossoming but there's a desire to get moving forward. and they keep asking me, what's
going on in congress? why can't you guys get it together out there? we explain what's happening here. we have been through five crises over the last 18 months. manufactured crises. things that didn't have to happen. each and every time, the entire system of america's economy and politics comes to a stop and we lurch up to that fateful cliff and then we move on. but not w but not with the kind of robust energy that this economy is capable of. we need to get this c.r. this continuing resolution, and all of these fiscal cliffs out of the way. to get the economy moving. and there's some very, very good examples of why the economy is poised to take off. and one of them's found here. if you take a look at this chart, these are the jobs creation or losses beginning way back in 2009, 2008. and all those red lines were the collapse of the economy.
when the blue came in, that's when president obama came in, four years ago. and things were tough. we were in a freefall here in our economy. but with the stimulus bill we began to climb out. and after about 18 months, we began to see positive job growth, no longer seeing those job losses. and we've seen that all the way through. this last month was a terrific month. 247,000 new jobs created. and that was in february. and so what happens in march? in march we come up against another cliff. and now we have sequestration. sequestration will bring us 750,000 unemployed americans. not a gain in the economy. the unemployment rate went down previous month. and now we have sequestration.
we passed a bill out of here last week that was supposed to solve it. it really didn't. in fact, it maintained sequestration. took care of a few things. but we got to get past this. we need to grow this economy. we need to make the investments. and there are really only five critical investments that need to be made year after year after year. and we need to do these things repeatedly. every month, every year in every budget. education, sequestration cuts education. all levels. research, sequestration cuts research. in my district, university of california-davis, $45 million of research projects have come to a screeching halt. ph.d.'s and others will be laid off. infrastructure. infrastructure, sequestration cuts infrastructure. manufacturing matters. we've got to make things. those are the four -- and the
fifth is you have to be willing to change. but you've got to change in a positive way. but we're going to talk about with my colleagues here, this issue of how to move the economy forward. and as we look at the past and this success, modest, not enough, but on the right track, we need to keep in mind that it is the role of the government, dating back to george washington and alexander hamilton, when washington asked hamilton to develop an industrial plan for the united states and hamilton did. and he laid out in that plan the critical role of government in moving the american economy forward and that was in the very first year of these united states. and so we should carry that tradition forward. as we go into this, let's keep in mind that we made progress and we have much more to do. joining me tonight is a gentleman who has created many, many jobs and now he has a new one. he's a member of congress from and reat state of maryland
it's mr. delaney. thank you very much for joining us. you have an exciting district. you have a considerable amount of high-tech in your district. mr. delaney: i do. mr. garamendi: share with us your thoughts about how we can grow the economy and maybe some of your own experiences because you've employed many, many people in your tenure in business. mr. delaney: that's right. i appreciate my friend from california providing me with this opportunity to talk about what i think is important for our economy. to get our economy going, to create jobs. and we spend a lot of time both in this congress and in washington generally talking about the economic challenges that this country faces and the employment challenges this country faces. and those conversations often evolve into conversations about our tax policy and about the size of our government. two very important things for us to be spending time on as we talk about the fiscal trajectory of the country. but two things that actually
have very little to do with what's important for creating jobs in this country. because what's really caused the employment challenges that we face today, what's really caused the economic challenges that this country faces are two things, globalization and technology. two trends that are gripping our society and really started about 20 or 25 years ago. and these trends are accelerating. and many people have been benefited by these trends. americans with great education have been blessed by these trends. americans with access to capital have benefited because of these trends. and hundreds of millions of citizens and -- around the world have benefited from these trends because they move from formally not being in a modern economy to being in a -- formerly not being in a modern economy to being in a modern economy. but the fact is the average american has been negatively affected by these trends. it happened too quickly, we weren't quite prepared for it, we didn't invest in our future
the way we need to, to prepare a broader number of americans for a world that is fundamentally changed -- has fundamentally changed -- changed because of these trends. to me this is the central issue we face as a country, if we want to reverse the employment trend. by the employment trend, i just don't mean the headline unemployment number. which is tragic. i mean what happens if you look behind those numbers. if you look at the standard of living of the average american, which has consistently gone down for now two decades. and in order to reverse these trends, in order to take these trends, globalization and technology, and bend them to benefit a broader number of americans, we fundamentally have to do things here in our country that involve investment. we have to improve our educational system and invest in education. there's never been a stronger correlation in the history of our country between having a good education and one's ability to get a job. we need a national energy
policy that can lead us to the advanced energy economy which will be cleaner and more efficient and more economical. if you look back over the history of modern economies, the two most important numbers for an economy to be successful is the cost of money and the cost of energy. we have an opportunity if we lead in advanced energy to keep the cost of energy down. we need to reform our immigration system. half of the fortune 500 companies in this country were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. immigrants fundamentally create jobs in this country. and we need to invest in our infrastructure. we need to build the modern infrastructure for the future, transportation, communication, energy, education alpha silts, all the things -- educational facilities, all the things we need to stay competitive. it will lay the groundwork for a more competitive america. these are the things we need to do to make our country more competitive so that we can create and attract and sustain
jobs that have a high standard of living. that's the sacred trust we've been given as members of congress. and to do these things, to make the investments that are important in energy and education and infrastructure and in our immigration system, we need to be in a position fiscally to make investments and that's a role of government that i strongly believe in. to do that we do have to change our fiscal trajectory. but we have to be honest about the drivers of our fiscal condition. we have to acknowledge that we do need comprehensive entitlement reform in this country, that are important entitle -- our important entitlement programs don't crowd out all the other priorities we have in the nation. we need to acknowledge that we need to reform our tax system, implement proposes as -- proposals like the buffett rule and create more revenue. our revenue as a percentage of our economy have never been lower. if we do these two things we create an opportunity for us to invest in our future.
we create an opportunity to do the things we need to do to make this country more competitive. as someone who was the son of a union electrician, whose parents never went to college, who had the blessing of a good education and started two businesses from scratch that both became new york stock exchange companies and created thousands of jobs, i have an appreciation of what's important in terms of entrepreneurship in this country. and these are the things we need to do if we want to make a difference. and these are the things i care about as we try to work against these important trends. i yield back to my friend from california. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, mr. delaney. thank you. well, you hit it right on the head. education, technology issues that we have before us, the issue of globalization and how we deal with it here, energy policy. wow, we're really blessed in the united states with an energy that has studly -- suddenly come back to plossom. the natural gas -- blossom. the natural gas. what an enormous asset for this
country. we really need to push that further along. and the immigration issue, all of these things before us right now. and if we move forward aggressively with the kind of things that you talked about and we're spending time here on the floor, we can really move this country and with the energy that businesses have and the experience that you know from your own experience in business, there's this penalty-up demand. there's a lot of -- pent-up demand. there's a lot of cash in the businesses of the nation. perhaps you can take up just the energy piece and put a little more thought -- not more thought but elaborate a little more on how you see the use of natural gas as a bridge, as you get to those clean energy issues that you talked about. mr. delaney: i think you made a very good point about the amount of cash in our private sector. there's more cash in u.s. corporations than there's ever been and there's more cash in our banks than there's ever been and i believe the private sector creates jobs but there's a clear role of government to level the playing field and make the investments that are needed for the private sector to thrive. and the energy industry is a terrific example of that.
if we had a national energy policy that pointed us in a common direction where we could say, this is where we want our energy production and utilization to be in the future, it would benefit americans so much in the short-term, the quality of their life, in terms of making us more competitive. if you look back at the history of this country, it takes us 50 years to change energy sources. it took us 50 years to go from wood to coal. it takes 50 years to go from coal to oil and natural gas and it will take about 50 years to truly have a this advanced clean -- to have this advanced, clean, efficient energy economy that we know we should have in this country. we should have policies in place that encourage that. and natural gas can be a fabulous bridge to that to youture -- to that future. there has to be accountability. we have to make sure it's done in an environmentally sensitive way. but we should be embracing it because it can clearly bridge us in a cleaner way and in a cost-effective and competitive way to the future we all
imagine for clean and advanced energy. it will take time to get there. it's a massive investment to transform our energy infrastructure which by the way will create a lot of jobs while we do it. but we can get there and natural gas can be a terrific bridge. mr. garamendi: i agree with all you've said. as we make that bridge to that clean energy, few -- clean energy future, we need to keep in mind that we talked about those 50-year increments as we talked about changing from one source of energy to another. in that process we, american taxpayers, seriously subsidized each and every one of those transitions. we now have to shift, it seems to me, to shift some of those subsidies from the old energy sources, specifically oil, and shift that into long-term subsidies, encouragement to those clean energy issues. if we do that, i think we'll see that kind of growth that you were talking about. mr. delaney: i absolutely agree with you. mr. garamendi: i nouveau to leave. thank you -- i know you have to ev loo. thank you so mucher have -- you
have to leave. thank you so very much for joining us. next up is mr. higgins from new york. you have a very serious issue about our infrastructure. or lack of good quality infrastructure in the united states. you have some plans for. that i don't know if that's what you want to talk about -- for that. i don't know if you want to talk about that tonight but i'm going to take you there sooner or later. please share your thoughts. mr. higgins: i thank the gentleman from new york and i think that the infrastructure piece is a vehicle for growth. and it's refreshing to see that this discussion tonight between three members is about how to grow the economy. there is not an example in human history of an economy growing out of a recession from austerity measures. it didn't happen in japan in the 1990's, it's not happening in europe today and it didn't happen in this country in 1937. what we have to do is invest in
education, as the gentleman has said, scientific research and infrastructure. this weekend, former republican candidate for president, rudy giuliani, talked about the importance of investments that have a return, that grow jobs and reduce debt and deficit. he talked about transportation infrastructure and rebuilding the roads and bridges of this country. the republican budget that was released today, the ryan budget, proposes to cut infrastructure spending over $5.7 xt 10 years by trillion. i would submit to you that we are moving in the wrong direction. we need to make investments in this economy. keep in mind, you know, a lot of people around here -- mr. garamendi: excuse me, may i interrupt you for just a second? mr. higgins: sure. mr. garamendi: i can't believe the number you just gave me. or gave to everybody. you said the ryan republican
budget that will come out this week does what to infrastructure? mr. higgins: cuts infrastructure spending by $5.7 trillion over 10 years. doesn't do anything doesn't do anything to defense spending. so while we, the advocates of increased infrastructure spending, want to nation build here at home in america, the ryan budget wants to continue to nation build in afghanistan and iraq and other places. in world war ii -- world war ii ended in 1945. we still have 52,000 u.s. soldiers in germany. we still have 49,000 u.s. soldiers in japan. we still have 10,000 u.s. soldiers in italy. we need to bring them home and nation build here. that's the paul ryan budget, not the tim ryan budget.
mr. garamendi: you've hit on something that caught my attention. also we should be aware that this year, october 2012 until october 2013, we will spend $100 billion -- $100 billion -- in afghanistan. to what effect? to have our soldiers kill wid afghan policemen? to create an ongoing conflict in that area with the people that are living there? to what effect? $100 billion. talk about bringing home the soldiers, we should bring the soldiers home from afghanistan. there'll be some small unit left there to deal with al qaeda and other terrorist organizations but it's not working. think about what $100 billion could do to solve the sequestration issue, which is nly $85 billion. mr. higgins: can i say something before you turn it
other to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan? a lot of people here in the majority do a lot of complaining about spending. the irony is, they did all the spending. you know, at the end of 2000, we had a budgetary surplus of $258 billion. they took that surplus and financed two wars, it took $1.2 trillion out of the american economy. they financed a drug prescription program, unpaid for, will cost us $1 trillion over 10 years. and they financed two tax cuts that didn't produce the skine of growth they were said to -- set to -- said to produce. after those tax cuts were enacted, disproportionately for the wealthy, we had the worst period of economic growth in 75 years. the clinton administration produced 22 million private sector jobs. we had 4% annual economic
growth sustained over an eight year period that purr produces budget tear surpluses and reduces the debt. that's lesson we should embrace. not the measures republicans are proposing, because historic lit it hasn't produced the kind of growth they promise it will produce. mr. ryan: if the gentleman will yield, i'd like to comment on the infrastructure piece. here we are today with needs abound in the country, both rail, combined sewer, highways, bridges, each of our counties york pull out how much bridges in our country -- counties aren't up to specs, i think it's 50 or 60 just in one of my bigger counties. these projects will only get more expensive. the energy costs going in are going to get more expensive. the labor costs are going to get more expensive. everything associated, the terribles, everything associated with what needs to get done is going to become more expensive.
i think the good buzz move on behalf of the taxpayer would be to get this done now, get people back to work and i recognize that we're still running deficit bus the interest rate at which we're borrowing the money is minimal. 1%, 2%. so we're going to wait. here's what's going to happen. we're going to wait, accidents are going to happen, bridges will collapse, things are going to just need to get done and then these local governments, state governments, we'll have to go out and borrow the money for 5% as opposed to 1% or 2%. i think as we're thinking about this, it's not that we're say, we don't have anything better to do, let's just spend government money, no. these are strategic investments, like in virginia, they're going to increase productivity, so people aren't just sitting in their cars, they're more productive, have higher quality of life, spend more time with their family, all these things we say are important. but we're going backwards
because at some point this stuff has to get done. >> according to transportation for america, there's 69,000 structurally deficient bridges in this nation. in new york, there are over ,000 bridges structurally deficient. in western new york, there are 99 bridges that are structurally deficient. every second of every day, seven cars drive on a bridge that's structurally deficient. as the gentleman from ohio pointed out, public infrastructure is the public's responsibility. it's as old as lincoln. he called them land improvements and railroads of the time. it's not a question of whether or not the public will -- will improve the infrastructure, chst when -- it's when does it make the most sense. we believe money is at cheap as it's ever going to be, labor is as cheap as it's ever going to , it's as cheap as it's ever
going to be. mr. garamendi: i couldn't believe that paul ryan will introduce a budget in the next few days that's going to take $5 trillion out of infrastructure. they always say we should, hen back to the founding far fathers and indeed we should. in his first month in august, george washington asked his treasury secretary, alexander hamilton, to develop a plan for the united states. in that was an infrastructure component. it said the united states government should support the creation of ports, canals and roads. right back to the very first days of this government, we have seen the role of the federal government in the infrastructure sector. and that is an investment. one thing i'll add before i turn it become to you gentleman, all of that's our
tax money. our tax money from all 360 million americans, coming in in one way or another, sometimes through the federal excise gas on gasoline, if we use that money to buy american made steal -- steel, i think that's near your district. mr. ryan: i think the gentleman from buffalo knows a little about that too. mr. garamendi: talking about american-made steel or concrete for those bridges. other kinds of equipment. if we do that, we create knobs in the united states. the manufacturing sector lost nine million jobs between 1990 and last year. this last year we've seen an additional 600,000 new jobs coming back into manufacturing. if we passed buy american, make it in america legislation so our tax money supports american-made products from american-made workers, made in america, we can see a boom in manufacturing. it's going to be important in
my district and i'm sure it is in yours. gentlemen, you're right on target here. these are the investments, these are the investments that george washington and alexander hamilton said we ought to make. mr. ryan, i know you have other things you'd like to toss into this. >> one of the things you were talking about, i'm just starting to learn more and more about this new additive manufacturing, there's a center in youngstown, ohio, now, a regional center for additive manufacturing the old school manufacturing is you would cut things out they called it subtractive manufacturing. the new stuff is a printer you have that would be in your, line the printer you have in your office, except you pump material into it and it just instead of ink on paper, it's a material that would make a component part. and the cost is down no to $700 or $800. this is the next generation of manufacturing. and i bring it up because the president put together a
proposal, the department of energy, expect of commerce, department of defense, to partner with the private sector to create one of these innovation institutes. he wants to do 15 more for $1 billion. if you would see the activity going on in youngstown, ohio, now. the companies that are parting with us, with the private sector work carnegie mellon, it goes to pittsburgh, university of akron, lehigh, penn state, west virginia, we've got to get buffalo in there somehow. but the point is, public-private partnership for the -- to expedite the development of new technologies. the president and his team get this. democrats get this. we've got to get away from the -- away from the narrative that anything the government spends money on is bad, it's a waste of tax collars, whether it's infrastructure, public-private
partnerships like the institutes that we need to create, that's the seed corn for the next generation of alternative energy, windmill, solar panels, whatever the case may be. we don't know what it is. that's why -- the recipe has always been invest in the basic research, put these public-private partnerships together and magic will happen because you have the basic scientific intellect and intelligence there with partnering with the private sector who has a profit motive and magic happens. and now we've gotten this scenario where the government has no role in this. no role at all. it's not either-or. i'd like to ask my friends who think it's either of or, what other relationship with another human being do you have that is that black and white? this stuff is complicated. it's complex. it takes nuance. that's what's happening in youngstown. i think it's a good example of what can happen around the country if you -- in older areas where we don't have the
local tax base that we used to have to have the federal government come in and you should see the ripple effect already happening. it's a beautiful thing. but it takes that kind of comprehensive plan. mr. garamendi: mr. higgins? mr. higgins: i was going to mention, tim was talking about infrastructure, the new american foundation has a study out called the way forward. they propose putting $1.2 billion onap and equipment is cheap. but they further explain it will create 25 million jobs over the next five years. five millionnempyment rate from its current rate to 6.4%. five million the second year reducing the unemployment rate further to 5.4%. these are proven growth vehicles and that's exactly what the economy does. it will also put people back to their considerable credit, have
a program called helmets and hard hats, where they take veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan, expedite their apprenticeship training and uh put them to work making $60,000 or $70,000 a year. you want to say thank you for your service on behalf of a grateful nation, put them to work rebuilding this nation. we will spend, the federal government, transportation and infrastructure this year, $53 billion. it's a disgrace. we're a nation of 300 million people. we just spent as a nation, the united states, $89 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of afghanistan. you spend $69 billion rebuilding the roads and bridges of iraq. those are nations of 30 million and 26 million respectively. but for a nation of 300 million people, you're going to spend $5 billion.
mr. ryan: you look at what our top competitors are spending as a percentage of their g.d.p., i think we're at 1% of our g.d.p. that we spend on infrastructure, maybe went up to 2% in this recovery package but if you look at india and china, it's 7% of 8% of their g.d.p. granted, they're still developing in so many different ways but for us to be at 1% and they're at 6% or 7% or 8%, how are we going to be able to keep up when our infrastructure is so much older, it's time to rebuild america. and i don't know anybody in my district, democrat or republican, who is really not for that. if you -- i've had republican friends of mine say, the light bulb goes off and says, we're going to have to co-this at some point and we have -- we've got a high unemployment rate and low interest rate, doesn't make sense to put it off. mr. garamendi: if not now,
when? we can to these things, wind turbiners in clean energy, solar panels and of course the transportation systems which we discussed. mr. ryan: as you said, too, you've got to ship that stuff. needs shipped somewhere on a road and over bridges and ports and airports and lo gistjicks -- logistics facilities and everything else. mr. garamendi: george washington and alexander hamilton at the very start of the nation said build the infrastructure. mr. higgins: we need them back here. mr. garamendi: well, the president has said it too. he talked about infrastructure, he's made proposals that have been push aid side by our republican colleagues here. there are proposals that would grow this economy, give us the foundation on which we can have additional growth. i see that the representative from the city of washington,
the district of washington, is here, ms. norton, thank you for joining us. gentlemen, thank you for this evening. eleanor holmes norton, thank you for ginning us. ms. norton -- ms. -- ms. norton: i want to thank the gentleman from kale. infrastructure is all made in america if we make sure we don't build bridges, for example, from materials from china, but when it comes to the roads, when it comes to the cement, we don't get those from abroad. we make those here. that's why infrastructure has always been the foremost way to stimulate an economy. it's interesting that it stimulates not only the construction trades but it's best because it stimulates other parts of the economy below it, the way to get
everything going. i couldn't agree with you more in pointing out you and i on the transportation and infrastructure committee, the importance of infrastructure. that used to be the great boish issue of the congress of the united states. i think there's some chance it will be again. we node that -- we note that this congress, the bill we just passed the last congress, service transportation bill, will have to be renewed next year. i certainly hope that becomes an opportunity to do a service transportation bill for more than two years and that's where we have to get to work right now. . i wanted to say to my friend, i'm so pleased he came to the floor today, in particular the time the ryan budget has come forward, and i note the very good news, the 247,000 jobs that the private sector on its own, with no help from the public sector, no help from the
congress, came forward -- has come forward with, cheering all of us up. but, mr. speaker, i do want to note that we are about to counterman all that the private sector is doing alone. and the reason is that the federal and the state sectors are doing just the opposite. they are reducing spending, states and cities are causing layoffs and the result is -- that's why every job that the private sector makes, we are moving in exactly the opposite are ion because all oars not in the water. if you're trying to bring growth, and thank goodness we have a private sector that is beginning to say we won't wait for the other oars, the private
and the state oar, we're going in now, the rest of you should join us. the very least we should do, however, is to make it worse for the private sector to keep doing what it's doing, sequester of course will do that. the markets have not reacted yet. but there is no way in which people in the private sector, particularly small businesses, are going to continue to add jobs as they see that the federal and state governments are doing just the opposite. the reason the state governments are doing that is because when we make cuts, that passes through directly to them. so they're trying to protect themselves because they must have a balanced budget. since they must have a balanced budget, they are making cuts every single day or at least reducing spending and the ryan budget comes forward and in a real sense it looks like -- a
lot like it's always looked. but look what it does. it makes half of its so-called savings from health care, medicare, medicaid and of all things, the affordable care act. i guess a budget ought to be -- we ought to say a budget is what indeed it always has been, 's what you hope -- it's a hope-for document. i hope that we don't get the ryan budget. but i cannot believe that mr. ryan believes that at this late date, with an election already taking place, with the benefit of the affordable care act -- benefits of the affordable care act flowing every day, that we're about to repeal that. half of his savings, medicare, medicaid, the affordable care stamps. he caps food i want to say to my good friend
from california, i think we ought to stop slapping the private sector in the face every time it makes jobs, making sure that we do cuts that take away the affects of those jobs -- effects of those jobs. that's what we're doing. i note that you have one of the posters that show how we hurt people. we ought to also understand we hurt people and we hurt the economy at the same time. and that's why c.b.o. says 700,000 jobs are at risk because of the sequester alone. leave aside what the ryan budget will do. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, representative norton, and for your years of service here. you were just moving through the ryan budget which i suspect he'll introduce maybe in the next day or two. this is the same old-same old but this time it's worse than the old. talking about an austerity budget, a very stringent austerity budget on steroids
that will clearly decimate the economy as those cuts are made. you just said the federal government makes a reduction, it comes right down to cities and states laying people off. and we've had this growth this -- month, 274,000 jobs 247,000 jobs, and here we go. let's understand what is being discussed by mr. ryan. who are these people on medicaid? and he propose it's to cut medicaid by 1/3 and block grant it to the states which means just give the states the money. but who are those people on medicaid? we call it medical in california but you can see that 2/3 of the medicaid money goes to seniors and disabled. so, mr. ryan, what are you doing? who exactly are you pointing out for the reductions? you're going after seniors and the disabled. ms. norton: i think that point
you just made about medicaid needs to be said again. people think of medicaid as somehow poor people who are left to fend for themselves. it turns out almost all of the funds, 2/3, go to seniors and disabled people. we're targeting the wrong people. mr. garamendi: they think it's welfare. these are seniors and disabled people who can't work or people that are retired. so, what does it mean? it slashes that budget for seniors that provide them with nursing homes. these folks are in nursing homes. so you're going to take 1/3 of the money out of nursing homes. now, just what are those seniors going to do? what are they going to do? they're taking 1/3 of the money out by 2022. you mentioned medicare. oh, yeah, medicare. mr. ryan proposes to end medicare as we know it.
he's going to give seniors a voucher. well, they can stay on medicare but they have a voucher to buy medicare. a guarantee of affordable health care, quality health care for seniors terminates with the ryan republican budget. who are those people on medicare? let's see. about 3% earn over $100,000 a year. 1% somewhere around $0,000 to $100,000 -- $90,000 to $100,000. down here, here's where the medicare beneficiaries are. they're earning somewhere, $10,000 to $20,000 or $30,000 right here. $28,000, $20,000, $16,000. you're getting up to 50%. people below 40% or $40,000. these are not wealthy people. medicare is there to provide people with the ability to have quality health care in their retirement years. mr. ryan would end that. and give them a voucher. and shift the cost to the
individuals who would then have to go out and buy private health insurance. i was insurance commissioner in california for eight years. and i understand what the private insurance companies are all about. the private health insurance companies are all about their bottom line profit. it's not people, it's profit. and if that's what mr. ryan wants to do, we're going to find vigorously and successfully to say no, no, the promise of medicare, the promise of medicare is here to stay. ms. norton: isn't that by the way exactly how we got medicare? that seniors were left to the private market and finally the congress understood that the private market could not accommodate people with that 22%, 28% income. mr. garamendi: exactly right. when i was young, before medicare, my dad, we lved in a rural community, -- we lived in a rural community, there was a county hospital. my dad took me to the county hospital to visit the rancher -- we were ranchers, on the
other side of the hill was another rancher that was elderly and at the county hospital. i will remember forever in my life going to that ward with maybe 15, 20 elderly people side by side in beds, the stench, the care was almost nonexistent. poverty was everywhere. it was worse than horrible. but in 1964, 1964 this nation did something very, very important. together with social security, they brought seniors out of poverty. because it was the medical expenses that forced them into poverty. so medicare brought seniors out of poverty and it went from, i don't know, i think it was almost 80% of seniors were in poverty, the situation today where maybe 8% to 10% are in poverty. social security, medicare. absolutely critical. ms. norton: and medicaid. mr. garamendi: and any attempt to change that goes right to the heart of our value as americans.
we will take care of our seniors. that's not to say changes are not possible. of course changes ought to be possible. for example, we ought to be negotiating with the drug companies over the price of prescription drugs. but oh, no. when the prescription drug benefit was passed, added into and signed by george w. bush, was a paragraph that said, the federal government is a price taker, it cannot negotiate the price of drugs. so we spend billions and billions that are not necessary. ms. norton: and of course there are some agencies who do negotiate the price of drugs. mr. garamendi: exactly. ms. norton: i do want to point out that when you talk about the transfer of the expense -- costs of medicare to seniors themselves, the costs we know they can't possibly bear, notice that your hopes got up when mitt romney said during the campaign that we should reduce the loopholes. not what mr. ryan does.
he reduces the loopholes in order to give rich folks a further tax reduction. so, where does the money go? the top rate now is 39.6%. he wants to bring that top rate down to 25%. so he wants to close the loopholes all right. i'm not sure which ones he has in mind. but they would go back into the same 1% sector that already has gotten all the benefit from tax consult cutlers until what we finally did in -- cuts until we what we finally did in january, which is that others got some relief as well. garr i'm going to pick up another chart. the issue you race -- mr. garamendi: let me pick up another chart. the issue you raised is one. ms. norton: i'm very glad my good friend from california does have a way to illustrate all of these points. not only does he reduce the top rate from 39.6% -- that's how much the very richest would pay, the 25%.
but you may say, well, but he's got a 10% rate in there, essentially for everybody else. well, if everybody else pays 10% and the very richest pay 25%, there would be no revenue for the federal government. so all we're saying about medicare and medicaid would mean there would be no revenue to fund them. and that seems to be his point. get so little revenue coming into the federal government itself that in and of will mean you have to have cuts and get rid of these programs that we've been building for 50 years. mr. garamendi: i ran over and got this chart. i wasn't going to talk about this this evening but you brought the issue up about where the money has gone and the issue of tax breaks. l.a. this chart begins in 1979 -- this chart begins in 1979 and it shows the basic growth in income. it starts down here at 79%.
this is the bottom 20% that have really seen maybe very, very little growth in their income. the next 20%, a little better. nd this is the next. these are the one-percenters. we talked about the 99%. this is the 99% down here. these are the one-percenters. these are the people who have seen extraordinary income growth. and it just happens to coincide right here, this income growth, has coincided with the bush tax cuts in the early 2000's. we've seen this enormous percentage income, almost a 300% income, 277% growth in their income. so that you're beginning to see this screwing of wealth in america. this is the annual income. but if